Crown Gaming Tells Court Problem Gambling a Choice

Attorneys defending the Australian gaming operator Crown said that problem gambling does not mean that victims have no control over their actions.

Attorneys for Crown Casinos asked a court to accept that problem gambling is a choice made by persons responsible for their own situation. During a trial over a lawsuit in which billionaire Harry Kakavas contends the casino company exploited his inability to control his compulsions, casino representatives said Kakavas had control of himself and chose not to exercise it.

Kakavas is suing for $35 million, about half of which is losses to the casino, the other half being damages for luring him to play in predatorial style. The Australian developer played baccarat at $300,000 a hand, risking over a billion dollars in less than a year.

Neil Young, the legal representative for Crown, said problem gambling does not mean a person has lost control over himself.

''They are not impaired by an inability to make judgments about their own best interests," said Young in closing argument. "They do make judgments about their own best interests and they make the wrong judgments."

Young argued that some of Kakavas' actions showed restraint, including taking a five-month gambling break, and leaving the casino several times with winnings.

The presiding judge, David Harper, seemed skeptical about Young's assertions.

''It can hardly be said that pathological gambling as a condition doesn't amount to an impairment,'' Harper commented.